Appeal No. 96-1659
Application 08/166,931
49-55 as being unpatentable over the teachings of Ferguson and
Watkins is sustained with respect to claims 50 and 52-54 but
is not sustained with respect to claims 35-41, 44-46, 49, 51
and 55.
2. The rejection of claims 42, 43, 47
and 48 on Ferguson and Watkins in view
of Iwata.
Each of these claims depends from independent claim 35
which was discussed previously. We did not sustain the
rejection of claim 35. Since the additional citation of Iwata
does not overcome the deficiencies noted above in the
rejection of claim 35, we also do not sustain the rejection of
these claims under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
3. The rejection of claims 56-68 on
Ferguson and Watkins in view of Kabat.
With respect to independent claims 56 and 67, the
examiner cites Ferguson and Watkins in the manner discussed
above. Kabat is cited as showing an interconnection of plural
smart loads with smart voltage conditioners. The examiner
relies on Kabat to teach the interfacing of alarm units in
Ferguson and for the recited resistive load in claims 56 and
14
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007